| Player 1 |
|
#character-encoding UTF-8
#player1 Ed_Liebfried Ed Liebfried
#player2 Jackson Jackson
>Ed_Liebfried: AIINOQR -AI +0 0
>Jackson: EEFHNTT H4 THEFT +24 24
#note I didnt love HEFT after an x2, which has both S and T quite high in his range - the extra bingo% I get from the T is nice, but both placements of HEFT would often give him better bingo options
>Ed_Liebfried: ADERSTU 4E STA.URED +68 68
>Jackson: AEEKNXY E4 .NEAKY +26 50
#note self descriptive. pretty close in the sim, but Q does prefer the standard EX by a couple points - I think tha tlooks better here, i didnt notice that it set up KEY itself, so it seems like a better avg outcome
>Ed_Liebfried: IILNORS 9H SIRLOIN +71 139
>Jackson: DEEENOX F2 DE.OX +60 110
>Ed_Liebfried: GISV O6 VIGS +32 171
>Jackson: DDEEHLN 5K HELD +29 139
#note HONDLE looks like the right idea thematically, but I felt like this was a board where that kind of opening play kind of leads to more closed boards, since he can make certain plays through the E to really close down the main options. HELD, keeping the RLOI floaters, works well if those stay open, but also it makes it harder to effectively close them since vertical plays will open more lanes on the 11-13 rows.
>Ed_Liebfried: ALNP 8A PLAN. +36 207
>Jackson: ADEENOT G7 OE +11 150
#note weird but seems fine
>Ed_Liebfried: ABEEIPR 2D BE.IAPER +65 272
>Jackson: ADEINRT L7 AR.INTED +70 220
#note unfortunately did not see DAINTIER here. While AROINTED exposes the floaters a bit more, which is nice, DAINTIER still looks worth the extra 2 points.
>Ed_Liebfried: MOY 1H YOM +47 319
>Jackson: ?GIRVWZ 13I WIV.R +30 250
>Ed_Liebfried: ABEIIT 12D TIBIAE +23 342
>Jackson: ??FGJSZ E11 J.G +22 272
#note really hard position to evaluate. I considered J(I)Zz, J(A)Zz, J(A)G, J(I)G, Z(A)G, Z(I)G, F(I)Z. I felt like the board was not quite potent enough to burn the blank, since it will be too tough to hit a bingo and I am not quite close enough to outscore without one. I liked holding the Z way more than the J here, between ZO(A) possibilities, ZOEA 1a, and the Z being better for bingoing on the B column. I preferred keeping the F to the G here because of the 14I EF play, which could really come in handy. Got to JIG out of process of elimination from there, but this position gets so weird with two blanks that this evaluation could be way off.
>Ed_Liebfried: AQU C8 .QUA +23 365
>Jackson: ??AFSTZ 14I eF +30 302
#note considered ZeTA 1A strongly, to try and draw an E to hit EF/EWE without burning the blank. Real estate is really thinning out here, so it's going to take a lot more than just a standard play to win here, I felt I had to be really proactive. eF felt like the best option, since tons of 2 tile draws give monster bingoes on the 15 row, and if he doesnt have the R, it's a tough setup to block. (I)F looked good at first, but he has so many blocks from the V in WIVER. that would work as well if I could hit any bingoes from the P in plank, but unfortunately nothing starts with P. Like last turn, I am really open to ideas here, because I would be surprised if there wasn't a creative way to juice more % from this position.
>Ed_Liebfried: CL 14G CL.. +8 373
>Jackson: ?AMOSTZ B10 MATZO +56 358
#note another hard turn. It was hard to imagine fishing here with such a singular lane on the board - he should be blocking every time, and I expect him to. MATZO can definitely outrun, even if not a majority of the time. That said, there seems to be a potentially better play here of ZA(G) - that threatens A/B column bingoes, but also draws M(YOM)ATOUS 1G with an A or U draw, which might be able to outrun if he blocks the A column for small. I could play that word immediately, but it seems like it doesn't win as well, reaching into such an ugly pool with a lone Z that doesnt have a ton of potential. MATZO might still be better than ZAG, but it's hard to say.
>Ed_Liebfried: OW M5 .OW +19 392
>Jackson: ?CEIRSU 15A ChUSE +37 395
#note This was the kind of position I was hoping for after MATZO, a 1-in the bag that I could try to maneuver into a win, but then over the board I really couldn't come up with anything that seemed to guarantee the win. C13 plays seem to beat me almost all the time, and so I felt forced to put a U at C15 to block those. I didnt have the time or brainpower to properly permute all of these - CHUSE never wins with optimal play from Ed, and as long as he sees WIVERN, all his wins should be pretty straightforward, with the exception of maybe (N)ONANE if I draw the G. EtIC can win optimally with an A or E draw, but still loses to WIVERN plays with the other 6 draws. One of the best exploitative plays here is fishing, which I really did not consider over the board - I was hyper fixated on finding the best MATZO-hooking play. Fishing the U hits with ANNOO draws - INCORPSE or CARSPIEL on the A/B column. While he can block and win in every scenario, it is a way less trivial endgame to first notice the bingoes and then block in the right way to outscore MATZOS plays. USER also wins with A and E draws, like EtIC. This is a huge error, and shows why you have to save a ton of time for the preendgame - had I permuted CHUSE and seen that it always loses to easy WIVERN plays, maybe I could have seen that USER and EtIC have the AE draw wins, or come up with U(T) to put Ed in a bind. Either way this was a huge error and could have easily changed the outcome of the game.
>Ed_Liebfried: AEGNNOU N11 GONE +22 414
>Jackson: IOR N2 ROI. +10 405
>Jackson: (ANU) +6 411
|
